In the Int. of: D.J.C., A Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Int. of: D.J.C., A Minor

DecidedApril 17, 2015

Docket1794 MDA 2014

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Int. of: D.J.C., A Minor (In the Int. of: D.J.C., A Minor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Int. of: D.J.C., A Minor, (Pa. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S16033-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.J.C., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

APPEAL OF: C.C., FATHER

No. 1794 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree September 29, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at No(s): 1370 of 2014

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 17, 2015

C.C. (“Father”) appeals the decree entered September 29, 2014, in the

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, involuntarily terminating his

parental rights to his son, D.J.C. (“Child”), born in May of 2011.1 On appeal,

Father argues the trial court erred in finding Lancaster County Children and

Youth Services (“CYS”) met its burden of proving termination of his parental

rights was warranted pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and

(b). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.2

____________________________________________

1 By the same decree, the orphans’ court involuntarily terminated the parental rights of Child’s mother, A.W. (“Mother”), not only to Child, but also to his half-sister. Mother did not file a notice of appeal. 2 Although the record and the November 16, 2014, opinion sur appeal identify the parties by their full names, “we will identify the parties in both (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S16033-15

On July 3, 2014, CYS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of

Father to Child. A preliminary decree was issued the same day, scheduling a

hearing for August 11, 2014. The hearing was continued and then held on

September 29, 2014. The underlying factual history was taken from the

September termination proceeding, which is set forth as follows:

[Child] was born [in May of 2011]. The history of his involvement with the Lancaster County Children and Youth Service Agency (Agency) goes back to 2012, after the Agency received a report concerning drug use by Father and [Child]’s mother, [A.W.] (Mother). Although the caseworker found Mother and Father to be drug free on a first visit, reports continued to be received by the Agency, and Mother refused to discuss these reports with the caseworker. On November 9, 2012, Father tested positive for opiates at a probation appointment. Mother, who had accompanied him, tested positive also and admitted to heroin use. The Agency put a safety plan in place. In February of 2013, Mother, who had not maintained consistent contact with the Agency, was in danger of eviction and had welfare fraud charges pending. She was not complying with the safety plan. Father, who had been imprisoned from November 9, 2012, to March 20, 2013, and from September 4, 2013 to October 9, 2013, was again in jail as of September 17, 2014 for two pending theft charges and a probation violation. He has a criminal history consisting of burglary, theft by unlawful taking and drug possession. There are outstanding warrants for his arrest in Tennessee and in Florida, where the county child services had taken his other two children, of whom he has never regained custody. He was indicated for physical abuse against his sister in 1998.

Since Mother was uncooperative with the Agency and Father was in prison at the beginning of 2013, the Agency decided to remove [Child] and his sibling[, K.E.S., (“Sister”)] from their home. Physical custody of [Child] was taken on _______________________ (Footnote Continued)

the caption and in this memorandum by their initials to preserve their privacy.” E.W. v. T.S., 916 A.2d 1197, 1199 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2007).

-2- J-S16033-15

February 25, 2013; he was found to be dependent and legal custody was obtained on March 11, 2013 by court order. [Child], was placed with his paternal aunt and uncle, where he remains. [Sister] was placed with him[.]

Both parents were given permanency plans with a goal of reunification, but neither completed his or her plan. Father never completed his mental health goal. He has not remained free from drugs and misuse of alcohol. His case with Family Alternatives was closed because he failed to make a required contact with the organization. He has not remained crime free, has been in prison three separate times, and has had four probation violations. He will have two additional years of probation after he is released from his latest incarceration. He has not completed his goal of remaining free from domestic violence. He has not completed his goal of learning and using good parenting skills; he did not start the program prior to his incarceration and is not in a position to do so without a positive recommendation from both the mental health and the drug and alcohol treatment providers. His goal of being financially stable is incomplete because of his incarceration, and the outstanding warrants in Florida and Tennessee make him ineligible for work release. As for his goal of commitment to his child, while not in prison he attended five visits with [Child]. The visits went well. While incarcerated, he wrote to the caseworker several times to inquire about the child’s status. He never wrote directly to [Child] or sent him anything, and testified at [the] hearing that no one ever told him he could do so and his mother thought that it would be better if he did not.

Upon being released from prison, he will be working at a Halfway house for at least three months. He told the court that he believed he would then be able to provide appropriate care for the children, just like he did after his prior releases from prison.

[Child] is doing very well with his aunt and uncle. His sister … also lives in the household with him. He is attending Head Start and fits in well with the family, which is a permanent resource for him.

Opinion Sur Appeal, 11/16/2014, at 1-3 (footnotes and record citations

omitted).

-3- J-S16033-15

A decree was issued the same day as the hearing, terminating Father’s

parental rights to Child. Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2)(i).

On appeal, Father presents two issues:

I. Did the Court err and abuse its discretion in terminating the parental rights of Appellant Father in that the Appellant Father was incarcerated during a significant period of time during the pendency of the underlying juvenile dependency action, but Appellant Father nevertheless utilized the resources available to him in continuing a relationship with his child, as Appellant Father forwarded written correspondence to the Children and Youth Agency case worker that inquired about the well being his child?

II. Did the Court err and abuse its discretion in terminating the rights of the Appellant Father, as termination of his parental rights is not in the best interests of the child and will not promote the physical, mental, or emotional well being of the child, as the Appellant Father will in the near future be released from prison and within a reasonable time be capable of performing parental duties and providing permanency for his child?

Father’s Brief at 7.

We review this appeal according to the following standard:

[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a trial court’s determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI